1 Aug 2025 | Africa, Americas, DR Congo, Europe and Central Asia, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine, United Kingdom, United States
In the age of online information, it can feel harder than ever to stay informed. As we get bombarded with news from all angles, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the killing of a Palestinian activist, and how Jewish comedians had their shows cancelled at Edinburgh Fringe.
Death for a documentary: Palestinian who worked on “No Other Land” killed in West Bank
Awdah Hathaleen, a Palestinian activist and community leader in the West Bank who worked on Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, was shot and killed outside a community centre on Monday 28 July.
The suspected shooter, identified as settler Yinon Levi, was sanctioned by the UK and EU last year. The incident was recorded, and was posted on X by No Other Land co-director Yuval Abraham. Following the shooting, an ambulance arrived to collect Hathaleen, and despite an autopsy being completed on Wednesday, the Israeli army is reportedly refusing to return his body to his family.
The military has set out demands to the family, including that no mourning tent be set up near Hathaleen’s home, and that he be buried in a nearby city rather than his home village; demands that his family have refused. More than 70 women in the village of Umm al-Kheir where the shooting took place have begun a hunger strike in response to the withholding of Hathaleen’s body, as well as continued arrests and detention for the citizens of the village since the incident. In contrast, Levi was released on house arrest on Tuesday.
Hathaleen had reportedly warned UK parliament about threats to his life before the incident, and he is not the first activist who worked on No Other Land to be attacked. The Palestinian co-director of the film, Hamdan Ballal, was beaten by masked settlers outside his home before he was detained by the IDF in March 2025.
Show’s over: Jewish comedians have Edinburgh Fringe shows cancelled over safety concerns
Two Jewish comedians have had their shows cancelled at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival over “safety concerns” raised by staff at the venue.
Rachel Creeger was one of the comedians to have had her show at Whistlebinkies – the venue in question – cancelled. She told Jewish News that she had previously performed there twice before, and that it was a “safe and happy space” for her. She received the call that her show was cancelled two weeks ahead of the performance date, with bar staff reportedly feeling unsafe with the extra security that was recommended for Jewish comedians.
Phillip Simon, the other comedian due to perform, also had a run of performances at Banshee Labyrinth cancelled. The venue claimed that they had made this decision after screening his social media account, picking out photos from a vigil marking 100 days since the 7 October attack, as well as messages mocking Greta Thunberg’s attempt to bring aid to Gaza via a flotilla. They stated that these posts signified views at odds with Banshee Labyrinth’s “stance against the current Israeli government’s policy and actions”. Simon rejected this claim, arguing that he had only ever supported “freeing the hostages and finding a way for peace”, and that he was “cancelled just for being Jewish”.
The bans have drawn much criticism, with shadow Scotland Secretary Andrew Bowie stating this incident “speaks very ill of the state of affairs in this country” regarding antisemitism. Festival organisers reportedly attempted to find alternate locations for the performances, but the short notice of the cancellations meant that none could be found; the performances have been removed from Fringe Festival’s website.
Taking the government to court: Palestine Action granted permission to challenge their proscription
A co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, has won the right to challenge the proscription of the group as a terrorist organisation in court in a landmark ruling, with a hearing scheduled for November.
Palestine Action was banned under anti-terrorism laws after two members of the group broke into RAF Brize Norton airbase and defaced aircraft. Since then, more than 200 people have been arrested for expressing support for them – a charge punishable by up to 14 years in prison. In July, Laura Murton was threatened with arrest by Kent police under the Terrorism Act despite showing no direct support for Palestine Action, with police being recorded telling her that the phrase “Free Gaza”, which she had written on a sign, was “supportive of Palestine Action”.
Mr Justice Chamberlain, ruling on the case, cited incidents like Murton’s as being “liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views”. He stated it was “arguable” that the proscription of the group amounted to a “disproportionate interference” to the rights of freedom of expression and of assembly as they are described in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This sentiment echoes that of UN human rights commissioner Volker Türk, who argued that the proscription of the group was an “impermissible restriction” on freedom of expression.
No questions allowed: Three DRC journalists detained for attempting to question a minister
On 23 July, three journalists from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were allegedly beaten and detained by officials after they visited the office of the Tshopo province’s Minister of Finance Patrick Valencio to question him about his appearance in, and alleged funding of, a TV series.
The journalists – KIS24 Info’s Steve Paluku, ElectionNet’s Paul Beyokobana, and Kisangani News newspaper’s Sébastien Mulamba – were reportedly beaten with sticks by officials before being taken to a local police station, where they were forced to stay overnight. Released the next day, the three have been ordered to the prosecutor’s office to meet Valencio.
DRC has repeatedly proven to be an unsafe country for journalists; The African nation ranks 133rd out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, with more than 50 attacks on journalists and newsrooms being reported in regions of the country mired in conflict with neighboring Rwanda.
Under watchful eyes: USA placed on civil society watchlist
The United States has been placed on a watchlist compiled by global civil society organisations highlighting “serious concerns regarding the exercise of civic freedoms” in the country, alongside nations such as El Salvador and Kenya.
The monthly watchlist, compiled by civil society watchdog CIVICUS, is intended to draw attention to countries in which civil liberties, such as freedom to protest and the free operation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are in steep decline. CIVICUS states that the US “appears to be sliding deeper into the quicksands of authoritarianism”.
Mandeep Tiwana, secretary general of CIVICUS, cited such incidents as the deployment of over 2000 members of the national guard to counter anti Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests as reasoning for the US’s place on the watchlist. Tiwana said these incidents were “incompatible with the essence of democracy” and a “preferred tactic of despots around the world”. Tiwana also denounced the targeting and arrest of journalists such as Mario Guevara, who was detained after reporting on the “No Kings” protests in June, as well as the attacks on those who “express solidarity with Palestinian rights,” such as Mahmoud Khalil.
The US is joined on the watchlist by El Salvador, who have built a strong relationship with the US since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term as president, as well as Turkey, Serbia, Kenya, and Indonesia.
29 Nov 2013 | Belarus, Europe and Central Asia
Public opinion is a mechanism that ensures the existence of representative democracy, and the political practices of the Western countries pay a lot of attention to this. The whole industry of research, PR, political technologies and media deal with the formation and study of public opinion – or using it in interests of different groups, societal or corporate. Public opinion is a well-established mechanism in Western democracies, ingrown and integral for their public and political systems. In Belarus, the existence of public opinion as such can be questioned.
Public opinion is not characteristic of a society by definition; we cannot judge that public opinion exists just because polls and sociological surveys are being conducted and there are decades worth of databases of the results.
Public opinion is often compared to a mirror that reflects reality. But there is a second part of the process; this reflection is supposed to affect the reality it reflects as well; correct and change it. A society that looks into a mirror of public opinion does not just admire its own beauty or despises its ugliness, but also can improves its “looks” — just like a person can correct their make-up, straighten their tie or even decide to undergo a plastic surgery.
Before we try to understand how this mirror works in Belarus let us consider several basic issues that define public opinion as such.
The first notion is an object of public opinion, i.e. issues or areas public has opinions on. Not any issue can become such an object; it only applies to problems that can arouse discussions and represent an issue of public interest. This public interest does not exist itself; it is formed as a certain political agenda that is important for a society. The question is who set sets this agenda and how it is set. In a democratic society it is set in intellectuals’ discussions, political debates, public campaigns. They formulate questions that require an attitude or an opinion from a wider community.
But the mere existence of these questions does not lead to formation of public opinion on them; it has to be inspired and formed. Methods of formation of public opinion vary from elections and political campaigns to the daily work of mass media, public discussions, opinion polls. All these institutions work to transform formulated questions into the societally important ones that require the public to respond or take a stance on.
And here comes a question, the answer to which seems so obvious that almost no one bothers to ask it in the 21st century: who is the subject of public opinion? The obvious answer is “the public” or “society”. The real question is how we define a society that can have “public opinion”. Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher, seriously questioned an ability of every individual member of a society to have a relevant opinion. [Baring this in mind, it is difficult to think that a society as a set of all individuals can be a subject of “public opinion”.
Thus, the subject of public opinion can be a part of a society that is capable of competent political judgement about a public agenda. The opinion of this part of a society reflects results of intellectual battles, discussions, social innovations and political programmes. Desire for inclusion of all population of a society in this “subject” is a true democratic ideal to aspire to; but this ideal is rather utopian. So, there is a clear difference between a society as a simple aggregate of all individuals affected by a joint public agenda – and a society as a subject of public opinion. However restrictive and undemocratic it may sound, we have to take this difference into consideration, as well as the fact that when this discrepancy reaches a certain level, public opinion as a social institute ceases to function.
There are various forms and channels of expression of public opinion and they correspond to the methods of formation of public opinion we mentioned above. Election campaigns inspire public opinion on a direction of development of a country; referenda make people formulate their opinions on issues in question; their results finalise these processes. Media play a dual role; on the one hand they are an instrument of formation of public opinion, on the other hand, they are a platform of an open public debate that allows various arguments to be presented. Opinion polls represent a range of views and suggest reference points for politicians, public figures and a society. All these channels allow public opinion to influence the agenda, the content of discussions among politicians and intellectuals, and decision-making in the end.
We have described a rather ideal or theoretical type of functioning of public opinion. It shows that the “mirror metaphor” over-simplifies its understanding; it is rather a complicated system of mirrors that reflect and distort each other’s signals, and create quite a sophisticated image as a result.
Now let us have a look at the situation in Belarus through such a notion of public opinion. The space of public politics in Belarus is absent as such; the space of intellectual discussions is shrinking. Despite these facts the agenda of the most vital issues that must be in focus of public opinion is quite obvious. The country is stuck in uncertainty as it has not answered some basic questions any development is impossible without – from the problem of geopolitical choice (or “the choice of the future”) to the issues of historical memory (or “the choice of the past”, if you like).
Language, social and economic setup, Western or Eastern way of development, law-based or social state – here are just some of the questions there are at least two contradicting answers to in Belarus. And neither of the two camps have significant influence or a comprehensive programme of work with public opinion on these issues.
The authorities of the country don’t have such a programme. It may sound a bit paradoxical, but Belarusian authorities don’t have any strong influence on public opinion either – just because they don’t deal with the subject of public opinion, they only deal with “people” or “a population” they try to control with the help of a system of social and economic balances.
Political opposition has been losing its influence on public opinion during the past decade, and at the moment it has lost it almost completely. The opposition has lost support among civil society and intellectuals as well; thus they have started going down the same road of “dealing with people” as the authorities do. The proof is a growing appeal of the idea of populism among the oppositional forces. So, instead of elaboration of strategies and programmes to address the vital issues for the Belarusian society, the opposition try to address people and “gather their wishes”. The problem is there are no mechanisms to make those wishes come true.
The alternative political agenda in Belarus has been concentrated more and more in civil society and cultural underground; but as subjects of public opinion themselves, they don’t have enough potential to inspire massive processes of formation of public opinion on significant issues. This has to do more with peculiarities of self-identification of civil society, rather than with conditions of work or organisational weaknesses.
In such a situation media and opinion polls find themselves in quite an ambiguous position. Let’s leave the state media that function as propaganda tools alone. Independent media have to be guided by their own understanding of “general democratic values” and audience needs – because there are no other clearly identified public agenda setters. Thus, it is difficult to be a platform for sensible public debate. It results in a situation where the public opinion-setting work of the media cannot be effective as there is nobody to take note of it and use its results, if there are any.
Sociologists find themselves in a similar position. In fact they have to combine the roles of an “agenda setter” or a “public customer” – and of a researcher. The absence of a real public request for surveying and measurement of public opinion – as well as actual space for implementing their results – make any poll, however deep, mass-scale and methodologically perfect, quite useless.
Thus, the whole system that should ensure a functioning public opinion in Belarus is perverted. If we recall the “mirror metaphor”, all spaces or mirrors in it exist in parallel realities and create a “labyrinth of reflections”, where the subject of public opinion seems to be completely lost. Unfortunately, Belarus cannot boast of a large number of people who are capable of formulating a responsible political opinion that have a potential of influencing the situation in any area. The number of these people is decreasing rather than growing.
The only chance for a change is to alter the positions of mirrors.
Global action is needed to counter Putin’s crackdown on civil society, says Yuri Dzhibladze, president of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights